Norpo

I think all rocket engines (and solid rocket boosters, though those only stay at 100%) automatically respond to throttle instantly. That is, they don't need any start-up time.

I think that's HTML code, which won't work in signatures, it'd just show up as random junk. You just need to put in BB code: [NOPARSE][/NOPARSE] should work. EDIT3: Yup, it works.

7.5/10 Seen ya around. A lot.

Granted. Nothing happens. I wish I knew the absolutely perfect sandwich recipe.

A fan running? (fifty and eighty could refer to temperture..)

2/10 vaguely recognize

Yes, but only if they do something *really* awesome. Once I had a kerbal survive a disaster, and he was BadS to boot. That's awesome, so I named my Jool mission after em, the Green Halnie. He was going to captain it, but the first ship failed. He died, but the second one was still named after him, and the green halnie flag still stands on Bop to this day. (Well, so does some wreckage from the lander that exploded, but that's not important)

Personally, I would love - RT-10 "Trash Can" Solid Fuel Booster. EDIT: Also, does the "IX" in the ion engine name mean anything? Roman numerals (9)?

And this is why after i'm done with Scorched Kerbin, i'll go back to 6.4x scale Kerbol. Nothing like a good challenge just to land on the Mun.

I don't think you can give specific kerbals different looks in the stock game, Bill, Bob, and Jeb's orange suits may be hardcoded. However, there's a mod that let's you what you're looking for, I believe, TextureReplacer. (you just need to install texture packs seperate): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107471-0-90-TextureReplacer-2-1-2-new-thread-the-old-one-is-broken As for where the files are located, I don't know, sorry.

False. User below has never had a craft enter Dres' SOI.

Pilot. I'm not great at engineering, and that makes the flying oh-so-much more fun. Nothing like piloting a wobbly rocket during a complicated maneuver with limited RCS, I say. Give me an engine, a fuel tank, and a command pod, and i'll make it fly.

Probably miles behind everything else here, but I made a glider. (Note the skids on the bottoms, those are Vernor engines.) Tommorow i'm gonna try dropping one from orbit and trying to land, that'll be fun.

Made a Karbonite powered plane; it was barely usable. But it looked awesome. First time I actually used the gizmos for aesthetics. Or made something that actually looked half-decent, for that matter. Ignore the fact the red lights make it look pink.

I should mention that Vernor engines have some.. alternative uses if you use them right. (probably cheating in most challenges, but who cares!) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109164-Vernor-Engines-and-weightlessness-abuse%21 100% weightless landing gear, for those small planes. 50 m/s impact resistance, and large-ish size makes them useful in many niche situations.

My first guess is that either: The thread got deleted, or you entered the wrong ID (and it's directing you to a mod-only subforum or something, or a different deleted thread) I don't mess around with links on the forum that often though, so take this advice with a grain of salt.

All polls, in all of history, for all of time before, and perhaps forever, has been, and will be skewed. They've always been skewed towards "people who actually vote in polls and found the polls interesting", one could argue there's the possibility that the average non-poller has different opinions than the average poll-voter, due to generalized differences, (e.g on average those who don't take polls like pie more because of (reason). ) but those differences can't be quantified, because you won't get them to take a poll. There's also the possibility it's not, though.. Accessability of polls (in this case, having a registered account on the forums) is also a factor here. Of course, due to the inherent nature of it (see: getting people who don't take polls to take a poll), there's really no way to know. Even if you held someone at knifepoint and threatened to get them to vote, you'd get the result of "someone who doesn't vote in polls and is currently being held at knifepoint", so you can't really get accurate results from that either. Even if you did, you'd probably be arrested before you could get a good database. It will remain a mystery. Simply put, if you successfully identify someone who doesn't take polls, and ask them to take a poll, what do you think will happen? (Hint: they don't take polls) Perhaps we should call the results the "gender of people who have a registered account on the KSP forums and actually were curious about this thread and voted when having to choose between "male" and "female" on an anonymous poll"? That's what it is when you get right down to it. Of course, as soon as you get to this point, you've realized you've spent 10 minutes writing a post on this subject, and that time could of been better spent. Playing KSP, for example.

Alternatively, you can use this handy web-based aerobraking calculator: https://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/ (EDIT: It will probably be obsolete in the next update though; aerodynamics are getting overhauled entirely)

Well, if i'm your enemy, you lost the argument. zekes?

See? The death star didn't blow up planets, it just lit them up.

...But this ship is even BIGGER! Yes, i'm aware of how easily it can be countered. No, I don't care.

Avatars should be simple, I say. No need for a giant amount of detail for something that users will look at for a second and say "oh yeah it's that guy", eh? Exhibit A: My simple space invaders avatar. Who else has one of those? Exhibit B: Red iron crown has a... Seriously? You need a hint? Red crown. Avatars are supposed to be an identifier, not a work of art

They changed that in 0.90, landing gear now have a mass of 0.005 and I checked the config to make sure PhysicsSignificance wasn't set, (admittedly, 0.005 isn't that much mass, but it's there), also sometimes for very small vehicles they are far too large. I use this as an alternative when making small aircraft (like in the picture) Oh yes, it's immensely cheaty, but that's the point, it's great as lithobraking cannon fodder if you're willing to cheat to do so. (In career, I think vernor engines are kind of expensive, so there's also that..) I think SQUAD should really nerf the impact resistance, due to things like this. (or at least give it a bit of weight) If you really wanted to I believe you could opt out of parachutes entirely for landing on Kerbin and just use Vernors for lithobraking. Weighs nothing, but it's a killer on part count/cost and nothing is really certain. Of course, you'd have to land on land, if your trajectory hit water you'd be doomed

I think he/she was being sarcastic. I hope.

Vernor engines (and the place-anywhere RCS port) have a 50 m/s crash resistance. AND they're weightless to boot, so I figured... Could they be a smaller, weightless alternative to landing gear? YES. With this plane, as long as you don't land at speeds exceeding 50 m/s, it lands perfectly, but you really have to take care to land horizontally, otherwise the physics engine might accidentally clip into the small struts. A while back, I also ran a similar test, and using symmetry I put a giant pillar of Vernors to a command pod, and crashed it into the Mun at 200 m/s or so. It survived. (No screenshots, I think I forgot to take some, sorry, but if you run the same test it should work)